overlordmaruyamafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Ainz Ooal Gown/@comment-78.226.26.9-20161028192334
I would like to share my through and explain why I don't think so. Being evil, it's doing "bad things" and taking pleasure of doing those things because of there nature. I keep reading everywhere, since volume 9 get out, that Ainz is "evil". Exemple : Someone who kill humans because he like killing human is evil. By "bad things", I refer to actions that are commonly judged as "bad", like killing for pleasure, raping women, etc. So killing to save your family out of legitimate defense isn't "bad", its "good". However, here, Ainz isn't taking any sort of pleasure in killing 70 000 humans, he take pleasure in controlling 5 Giant Monsters (which should be quit fun in other situation right ?) Thuse, Ainz cannot be called "evil". Cause Ainz being happy do not depend of the "bad" action. Basically, he would still be happy even if he were merely ordering the Dark Youngs to make a race, or even just fighting golems. SO NO, Ainz isn't evil. Killing 70 000 men and laughing because of something else, its not being evil, it's being indifferent, NEUTRAL. However, indeed Ainz is a mass murderer. But do being a mass murderer made someone "evil" ? NO. Take the example where you can save 10 person by killing 5 yourself. Every man that can be qualifie as "good" would kill the 5 to save the 10. It's the same principle with a different scale. Killing for exemple 10000000 people to save 5000000000000. You are a mass murderer, but you're not evil, you're even good in this case. So no this logic of being evil because he kill many isn't justified. Hence, in a sense, Ains can even be called a heroe. Just think about it, let's say that in order to conquer the world, Ainz wil need to kill over 5 millions of people. Let's also say that, with his power, he is able to keep the people he rule from ever starting war between themself. Let's also assume that the people that Ainz are rulling are living a BETTER life under his rule than under their past ruler (which is, until now, true). Then, if we take in account the fact that, for exemple, every year, 500 000 people die because of war in the world (So death that are independant of Ainz actions, to a point). If Ainz conquer the world by killing 5 000 000, then after 10 years of rule over the whole world , we can concider that Ainz would start saving people each years by the 11 year, roughtly 500 000 saved each year. (in 10 years, he would have repayed the life of those he killed in order to conquer the world, because 10 * 500 000 = 5 000 000 which is the amount he had to kill in order to conquer the world). After 100 years of rule, Ainz would have saved 90*500 000=45000000 peoples, those peoples would have died if Ainz wouldn't have conquered the world. Let's summarize, if Ainz start his world conquest in lets say 1200, and end it in 1220. He killed 5 000 000 people in order to get is conquest done and we do not consider the death of cause which are different than war (they are still fewer when Ainz do take control of the world, so they are irrevelant in prooving that Ainz is bad/good in this case) We have 2 possibility, let's count the total number of death: Either Ainz do not conquer the world, In 1200 : 0 death cause it's the start In 1220 :20*500 000= 10 000 000 death In 1230 : 10 000 000 (total of past death) + 10 * 500 000 = 15 000 000 In 1240 : 15 000 000 (total of past death) + 10 * 500 000 =20 000 000 In 1250 : 20 000 000 + 10 * 500 000 = 25 000 000 So let's stop here, we have a potential infinite number of death, the fact is that if Ainz do not conquer the world, we end up with 25 000 000 of death in total in 1250. Either Ainz conquer the world : In 1200 : 0 death In 1220 : 5 000 000 (dead because of Ainz) + 500 000*20 = 15 000 000 death (In true, the number of death each year because of war unralated to Ainz should decrease cause Ainz is conquered the world, thuse less people die in wars unralated to him) In 1230 : 15 000 000 (the total number of past death) + 0 (cause the conquest ended, thuse nobody die because of war anymore) In 1240 : 15 000 000 (total number of death) In 1250 : 15 000 000 (same) Let's stop here, the fact is that in 1250, if Ainz conquer the world, we have a total of only 15 000 000 death, rather than 25 000 000 in the case where Ainz do not conquer the world. Thuse, conquering the world by killing over millions of peoples could be called the choice of raison, the good choice that save more life, the choice of the good. So Ainz, though it's not out of his will, is doing what a heroe should do right ? He is not EVIL (as explained before, he is NEUTRAL), AND is actions are ultimately GOOD. Which is the point I wanted to proove. So no, for me, Ainz is not evil, he is indifferent, neutral, but with a bit of human remnant left, and is walking the pass a heroe should be walking, through he don't know it... In fact, for me, we can call Ainz the greatest heroe, he is soiling his hand at the greatest scale possible which end up in being the GOOD choice, leading to the best ending. Would you have the courage to be called the greatest murderer of history just for doing the right thing ? Would you not, at the place of Ainz, merely saving people out of goodwill, from time to time, without hindering you with state affaire in order to keep your mental fortitude ? Me ? I would like to think that I would be able to do the choice to soil myself, but I'm fairly sure that I will die of regret, the regret to have kill so many but to not be 100% sure that I made the right choice, even if it's the so called good thing to do. I'd like to be that heroe, but I fear to regret it. Maybe being undead could solve this problem, right =D Do someone disagree ? I might be wrong, I have always been thinking about it : If i were to follow this judgment, that I consider true, and end up( after having conquered the world by killing millions of people) finding that my judgment was wrong, how would I feel.... Strangely, I would really like to be in this case.